Skip to main content

About your Search

( more )
English 123
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 123 (some duplicates have been removed)
deficit will be under $1 trillion for the first time since president obama took office. the c.b.o. also estimates the economy will grow 1.4% this year with unemployment remaining around 8%. c.b.o. director sat down with reporters this afternoon to discuss the economic and budget forecast. >> hello. thank you all for coming. i'm the director of the budget office. c.b.o. just released its outlook for the federal budget and the economy over the next decade. i'd like to tell you a little bit about if and then my colleagues and i will be happy to take your questions. our analysis shows that the united states continues to face very large economic and budget challenges. under current law we expect that the unemployment rate will remain above 7.5% through next year. that would make 2014 the sixth year in a row with unemployment so high. the longest such period in 70 years. also under current law, we expect the budget deficits over the next decade would total about $7 trillion. with deficits so high, the federal debt held by the public would remain a larger percentage of g.d.p. as in any year be
the real question here is, how do we reduce our deficits in a way that does not hurt the economy right now, but does make sure that as the economy improves that public spending is not -- and deficit spending is not squeeze the out by private investment. for the last couple years the problem has been opposite. we have seen less private investment, so the moneys the federal government has spent have been very important to helping the economy from going into free fall. . there is no doubt that we have to deal with the balanced approach and that's where the debate lies in how we should do that. again, our republican colleagues have said no to the balanced approach. they said no to the plan that we offered to prevent the sequester. they wouldn't allow a vote on the plan we offered to prevent the sequester that's going to hit on march 1 and which our republican colleagues in statement after statement on this floor have said is going to hurt the economy and which we know from the last quarter's economic report is already hurting the economy just because businesses are anticipating the possibility
to face and i think much more important is the very large, long run deficit that a thing all of us want our policymakers to come together and address how we're going to do with it. i think that's unfortunate will have to be front and center in the next year coming up with that. i sure hope it is. >> let's see, i think first thing just to mind ourselves out is that the impact of it president on the short-term macro economy is almost always exaggerated. presidents can have a big impact on the economy in the medium term and long run, largely -- and while the fed has cut aid to help they can should have a much bigger short-term effect, we immediately looked to the white house and said what are you going to be about the economy right now? dr. romer and i would have to go on tv and there is points and talk about the job supports and what would happen over the course of the next month and the thing that is so frustrating note in fact not much that you were doing action has a direct result what will happen over the course of the next month. i think it is interesting how the debate has shifted.
the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth you are not delegate t going te deficit. we need more revenue and more cuts. i would like to see that in a big balanced bold proposal. short of that, we must do something to avoid the sequester. >> chris: here is what house speaker boehner said this week. >> at some point, washington, has to deal with its spending problem. i have watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years that i have been here. i have had enough of it. it's time to act. >> chris: congress woman, let's look at the numbers. are you really saying in a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year increased discretionary spending by 14% in the last four years you can't $85 billion to cut to avoid the sequester. >> we have made the cut in terms of agriculture subsidies. there are tens of billions of dollars in cuts there. and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidies for big oil. why should we lower pell grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil? >> chris: why not just cut spending. 85 billion north dakota a $3.5 trillion government.
will make what white house officials are describing as a progressive case for deficit reduction, that that still needs to be done even entitlement reform, and the progressive case is if these programs continue to grow out of control, they crowd out other initiatives, other priorities that are, you know, that progressives hold dear on education, on infrastructure, you know, social programs. >> well, one of the other things we'll see, congressman ellison, you and several other members of the democratic caucus will bring guests into the chamber victims of gun violence. >> that's right. as a matter of fact, young man named semi rahiman, who lost his father in a tragic event in minneapolis will join me and jim langua languagevin and our colleagues, about 30 members who are inviting victims of gun violence to be in the gallery looking forward to them being with us because they -- they're witnesses to the need for sane, sensible reform in the area of gun violence prevention. >> congressman cole, what's your sense of what can get done on that this year? gabby giffords will also be in th
of the administration, the deficit tripled, the previous record high deficit in this country, to $1.4 trillion. $1.3 trillion in f.y. 2010. $1.3 trillion in 2011, $1.2 trillion in f.y. 2012. and, mr. speaker, there's no plan that the administration has produced to get us from where we are, fiscal irresponsibility, to a point in the future of fiscal responsibility. mr. speaker, we've been doing our part here in the house, we've been proud to work together across the aisle in order to pass budgets that tackle those hard challenges that are ahead of us. if you go and read the president's comments, mr. speaker, you'll see that he recognized the challenges are hard. the question is, are we going to deal with those or not? i hold here, mr. speaker, a speech that the president made to the democratic national convention on september 6, 2012. where he said this, i will use the money that we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work. and my notes here said it was followed by extended cheers and applause. i suspect my friend from massachusetts supports that spirit who
" is next. host: the federal deficit is expected to dip below one trillion. the news comes as republicans and democrats face a march 1 deadline to avoid billions in across-the-board spending cuts. the pentagon announced it will offer benefits to same-sex couples. in the senate is wrapping up work on the violence against women act. and the house will vote on a bill requiring the president to offer a plan to balance the federal budget in 10 years. good morning. we begin with your take on the leaked white paper from the white house just fine drone strikes on u.s. citizens overseas. nbc news reported on the memo monday night and it has gotten lots of reaction in washington. what are your thoughts? call -- we want to get your thoughts on social media as well on twitter or facebook. or send us an e-mail. we will get your thoughts in a moment. first, josh gerstein is joining us on the phone. here's your headline -- what was this memo? guest: this is a white paper that looks like it was derived from some confidential legal opinions that the opinions -- opinions that the justice department wrote t
economy back to work and create jobs, jobs, jobs. that's what this is about. our deficit has been coming down and the patient approach is to recognize that we actually have time. we should bring the deficit down, but we have time. we should take the cuts off the table and think about how to get the economy going. if people work again, we are on the road to solving the problem. >> to that point and looking at the cuts you have been pointing out to head start and cuts to wic, the women, infant and children nutritional assistant program, they are penny wise and foolish and may be making things worse in the long run. >> i'm glad you raised that, crystal. if you think about the single mom working 12 hours a day and her paycheck does not take her to the end of the month on food. what she realizes and has been a responsible mom, but realizes after she makes the decision to have her child not have an abortion is that her paycheck is not going to help her feed her infant. the women infant children program not only feeds these families, it also teaches them about nutrition and how to be healther a
is happening, it is true that the deficits are going to be below a trillion dollars for the first time in several years. it is true that the new revenues and spending that you did not do -- it is also true the economy is beginning to grow again. this is almost like the reverse of what we did in 1993. i was perfectly well aware that a raise taxes and cut spending, it could have been dragging effect on the economy. but not nearly as much as not nearly as much as having low growth or then having interest rates that were too high. so our gamble was that the explosive effect of lowing interest rates with a booming bond market and having more disposal income over five-10 year period to invest in america's future would more than offset putting the hammer down by raising more money and cutting spending. it turned out to be a good gamble. it will make sense here again. but timing is everything. so i think you should have a budget that does not defy arithmetic and does not follow in the trap that we had for 20 of the last 32 years which is you always get more money when you cut taxes. but it is
that we need higher fuel tax, and we can use that either to reduce the deficit or to pay for something else. it was designed -- or intended -- whether it has done so successfully or not, it was done to pay for infrastructure. >> absolutely. we are not real happy about that. >> john, what are you hoping for next week? >> for some reason, i have not been consulted on that. the president in the campaign said he was 4 and all of the above energy policy, so let's have some announcements that support that -- he was for an " all of the above" energy policy. let's move forward with the things that you need to do to accomplish that policy. i would say that we would also -- i would like to see stop this discussion about taxing the industry and trying to characterize it as subsidies, which is simply not true, and i would like to see more opportunities in terms of where we can open up areas that are off-limits right now. all those combined can generate an enormous amount of opportunity for the economy right when we need it. >> i will just mention a couple of things. i think lenders have been reall
the budget deficit will drop below $1 trillion for the first time during obama's presidency. the congressional budget office which assumes that federal spending cuts will go into effect march 1st says the government will run a deficit of $845 billion this year compared to last year's $1.1 trillion shortfall. but the cbo's ten-year outlook predicts those improvements will not last. it warns that an aging population will drive up entitlement spending and rising interest rates will put the debt at unsustainable levels. if current laws remain in place, debt by 2023 only ten years from now will equal 77% of gdp. that's roughly double the 39% average seen over the past 40 years. >>> and president obama is asking lawmakers to take quick action as a march 1st deadline approaches that will trigger deep spending cuts. "the new york times" writes this morning that "mr. obama, who missed a deadline this week to submit his annual budget to congress, acknowledged on tuesday that a broader deficit agreement is unlikely to be reached by the march deadline. he provided no details about the t
. republicans are winning the battle, wouldn't you say, when it comes to balancing? over two-thirds of deficit reduction has come from cuts to domestic programs, and it's not exactly fair. but now the house progressive caucus has come out with what they call the balancing act. it's a common-sense plan to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes and cutting wasteful defense spending. here is the chart of the plan. there is $1.7 trillion in new revenue. the $1.7 trillion in spending cuts is still there. this looks like a much fairer chart than the current system, don't you think? and it's estimated to reduce the deficit by $3.3 trillion. remember, we're trying to hit $4 trillion. so we're getting closer. the plan ends tax loopholes for yachts and for jets. it reduces the corporate meal and entertainment deduction to 25%. you can't write off the whole dinner anymore. it ends fossil fuel subsidies for oil companies that are raking in massive profits. exxonmobil, you know what their profit was? $44 billion in 2012. the last thing they need right now is your tax dollars as subsidy. the balancing
. >> they need to make cost-cutting measures. i mean, they've been running in the deficit for quite a while. >> you know, those folks look like just hard-working knowledgeable americans that care about the country. but they're so wrong. it's not about e-mails and it's not about ecommerce. it's about the republican party destroying the middle class in this country. and i wonder how many of those folks right there who don't rely on the post office, how they're going to feel when their netflix deliveries are delayed. what? they're not here for saturday night family movies? that's right. people definitely take the post office for granted. most everything americans know about the post office is absolutely wrong. they haven't paid attention to the story. and into the mainstream media, here we go. this morning, the "washington post" is telling people that the post office suffered tens of billions of dollars in losses in recent years with the advent of the internet and ecommerce. really? plenty of other media outlets. well, they are taking their information directly from the republican talking poin
to save $45 billion this year. that's 4% of the deficit. we're going to endanger our national defenses and shortchange our servicemen and women overseas for the sake of cutting 4% from this year's deficit? it is totally irresponsible. >> stephanie: wow. deficits don't matter again. >> that's a good point. deficits are this -- you know, this sort of murderous ominous thing that is hanging over the generations and obama doesn't care about the future generations. there are actual cuts. but look, crystal he uses this card all the time. he wrote a column last week saying if democrats don't vote against chuck hagel they're endangering our troops. we want to have some -- cutting that republicans claim we have to do, they're endangering our troops. >> stephanie: all right. hang on, eric remains in the side sidecar. we continue more right-wing world. it is "the stephanie miller show." >> announcer: there's a tea party in her pants and you're invited. call now. 1-800-steph-12. with the know how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready.
about deficits, we are buying in to the right wing mantra somehow deficits are killing the economy. look at great britain and doing with their austerity plans and doesn't add up. i'm much more of the mind to be proactively looking at infrastructure investment like many of the business advisers told president obama should happen. people from commerce, from industry. i get it. that won't happen as long as house republicans are dead set against it. and what we're left with is unfortunately in my view a detente to put the discussion in the frame the republicans want. what about deficits? we have a jobs crisis in this country. not a deficit crisis. to me, the whole conversation has been pushed to the right further than it should be. >> and karen, on a last note, in anticipation of the president's speech, the white house released numbers on the people affected by the cuts. i believe around 600,000, between 600,000 and 800,000 suffering as a result of cuts to food stamps and other program that is people need to survive these days and at least some of the analysis out there, democrats feel that
we're going to get these defense cuts and deficit hawks, conservatives, tea partiers are putting moderate republicans in a bind saying this is cutting our deficit. let's go for it. >> the grand irony, of course, is the fact that the number -- if you poll people their number one issue is jobs, right? it continues to be jobs. and $120 billion austerity crunch, the numbers being bantered around, in exchange for the sequester, which is like $85 billion. whatever it is, right, that's a big chunk. that will have an effect, negative jobs effect, no question. >> it is going to have an effect, i agree with you, chris. here is what i think. i think it is a risk. there will probably be a small recession. we had a .1 decrease in gdp last time. this deficit is a real problem. this is where i depart from paul. who am i to depart from paul? a nobel laureate. >> we'll ask him. >> this is about the best deal we'll get out of the right-winged crazy people in the house. >> because it's balanced and -- >> it doesn't really touch -- there's no better deal progressives are going to get out of this oth
with smarter spending reductions to bring down the deficit. we can do it in a gradual way so that there is less of an impact. these deductions that certain folks can take advantage of, the average person cannot. not everyone has access to cayman island accounts, the average person does not have access to carry interest income, where they wind up paying a much lower rate on the billions that they earned. we want to make sure that the whole system is fair and transparent and that we are reducing our deficit in a way that does not hamper growth and reduce the kinds of strategies that we need in order to make sure that we are creating a strong middle-class. host: jim from south carolina, on the republican line, good morning. caller: how are you? host: well, thank you. caller: you keep mentioning and hearing people talking about pensions, but pensions are just invested the same way that 401k is. stocks and bonds. people with pensions lost money as well. i heard cases where people were not going to get as much money. if someone is manages their 401k, i do not know, it needs to be managed properly and
of americans want sensible policies for this country. they want to us deal with the deficit in a way that provides for the future of this country. so they want to invest in research and education. they want roads and bridges. we're having a tough time breaking through the division that we have in washington. and quite frankly, the more you can do to underscore the importance of the work that you do, i think the stronger the voice will be for a reasonable solution to our fiscal problems that will permit n.i.h. to get the funding it needs on a permanent basis. so i think this point needs to be underscored more and more. the work you do here and the impact it has on our lives. i was talking -- we had a chance to talk about the work being done in infection diseases about trying to develop a way in which we can get a flu shot that is more generic rather than every year. that's extremely exciting to me. i don't like trying to figure out when i'm going to get my flu shot and whether it works or not. the more we talk about what we can achieve in the future, what america can achieve in the fu
with a record debt and deficit, threat of global warming, threat of global poverty, of pandemics, of national security challenges like continuing war on terrorism, the instability of iran and north korea, rising powers, turmoil across the middle east, turmoil in north africa, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the growing threat of cyberattacks. how we confront these problems, how we deal with these challenges will in many ways determine that future course of america. it will determine whether the united states will be a leader in the 21st century or whether we will be just another failed empire in history. to succeed we will depend on the resilience of our economy, the strength of our diplomatic and military institutions and above all, the effectiveness of our political system that underpins in many ways what we do as a country. and that brings me to what i see as perhaps the most urgent task facing this nation and facing all of us and that is overcoming the partisan dysfunction in congress that poses a threat to our quality of life, to our national security, to our economy
the economy is in a recession or if it it's sagging, then you need deficit spending to get it moving. republicans used to agree with that. even in 2007 and 2008, they were proposing different stimulus measures. they no longer agree with the idea that they get the economy moving in a rough time. so maybe you have to actually have some spending cuts go into effect and see the effect on the economy for them to recognize the fact that oh, yes, if we take this money out of the economy, the economy will go down. that's what happened last quarter. if you hit the pentagon and if you hit domestic spending there's no question that the economy will retreat. so maybe they actually have to see that happen and then there will be some type of political reckoning and a turnaround and we can talk rationally about how to get this economy going again and create jobs. >> of course the president insisted -- and he talked about this yesterday -- he thinks we have to stop lurching from crisis to crisis. >> we continue to have these self-inflicted crisis here in washington that suddenly leads everybody to t
the deficit. all by honoring the wish of 2/3 of americans to respect states' rights for marijuana just like we do for alcohol. i would invite my colleagues to join this effort in developing a marijuana policy that makes sense for america today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for five minutes. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, january is the traditional month in which new year's resolutions are developed. i'm suggesting that president obama and mrs. boim adopt a resolution -- mrs. obama adopt a resolution. it appears to me, mr. speaker, regard air force one very casually and i believe on some occasions two planes, at least two planes go to the same destination. air force one, mr. speaker, belongs to president and mrs. obama. but air force one also belongs to the american taxpayer. and i would welcome a new year's resolution that would provide generous lace of all future air force one dispatches with prudence, discipline and last but certainly not least fiscal austerity. america's taxpayers will be
to lower the devers, but americans do not -- to lower the deficit, but americans do not support sacrificing real spenged cuts for more tax hikes. the president's sequester should be replaced with spending cuts and reforms that put us on a path to balance a budget over the next 10 years. the american people believe that the tax question has been settled. they know the president called for a balanced approach to the debt. combination of revenues and spending cuts, and they know he's gotten his revenue. the american people do not believe the president will use further tax revenues to lower the debt. and haven't seen this president attempt to spend his way into prosperity over the last four years, they know he'll spend it. the president doesn't believe we have a spending problem. he general winly believes the government -- genuinely believes the government spending causes economic growth. if that were true, the economy today would be thriving. it isn't thriving. the unemployment rate is still nearly 8% and rising. small businesses like the one i ran are struggling. middle class families, those
of a man, but he actually tripled the deficit and debt and expanded the size of government to or proportions, the same as george bush and republicans always blamed democrats, even though clinton and obama both have lower the deficit if you look at the treasury's website for every fiscal year. every single republican from nixon to george bush as we expanded the deficit greatly. the congress didn't change. it is just the president, but it's always blamed on congress. whenever credit given, they want all the credit, none of the responsibility. republicans will say divisive things. zero, this birth certificate or you're not american enough for denver. >> guest: three things. as a general matter, members of those party blame the other party. president obama more than any in my lifetime has landed the republican party and generally been whining or can need more excuses than any president. he seemed as if he couldn't give a speech for a while without claiming everything, including athletes foot on george w. bush. that gets tiresome after a while. but the criteria is claiming the o
, he talked about the economy. when it comes to tackling the nation's deficit, president obama said sunday in an interview with cbs news there needs to be revenue involved. and it sounds like he might be interested in going after people like mitt romney. >> there is no doubt we need additional revenue coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit. and we can do it in a gradual way so that it doesn't have a huge impact. and as i said, when you look at some of these deductions that certain folks are able to take advantage of, the average person can't take advantage of them. the average person doesn't have access to cayman island accounts. the average person doesn't have access to carried interest income where they end up paying a much lower rate on billions of dollars that they've earned. so we just want to make sure that the whole system is fair. >> all right. steve, help me out here. i think the democrats are holding a losing hand if they come back and ask for more taxes. they talk about raising tax rates on anybody. but if we're talking about closing loo
. poverty is rising and incomes are dropping and the deficit is unsustainable. what does he say? >> he will talk about the economy. until now he was going to talk about the issues washington, dc, is consumed with but a new poll from pew shows the top things people are concerned about the economy, deficit, jobs, things the president did not talk about at the inaugural. at bottom were immigration, gun control legislation and the very bottom, global warming, the issues the president was going to hammer. we will see. now he is going to go with the economy and fight the sequester. speaking of hypocrisy the bill he proposed and the republicans and democrats in congress both passed, now they all deny they now how we got here. >>gregg: what do you expect, doug, from the president? >> he will say he has a job strategy as pat suggested, because the disconnect between the american people and the elites in washington could not be greater. the president knows his own popularity while greater than the republicans is hanging on a slender reed and he has to make the case he has a strategy to address t
are. the question of what's the growing end of the church and how do you address this faith deficit in the historic way of catholicism, the western world, is going to be high on the agenda, it would seem to me, of the cardinals meeting in conclave and in the informal conversations which let's not forget began about six hours ago that will precede the formal meetings before the conclave is closed. >> you've touched on something that ann thompson, you know very well, that there is a sight of this that is political. not in the grungy sense of the word, but in the larnler sense that there are factions, correct, and as you have been covering this in the past with john paul ii and the asinges of benedict xvi, you have a feel for how that work as well. >> well, i think the thing -- the thing for people to understand here, andrea, is that there is a clear difference between what some of the people in the pews want and what the leadership believes in. you know, there's a lot of speculation today. would the new pope consider married priests or women priests or gay marriage or sexual reproduct
. grappling with a record debt and deficits, threat of global warming, threat of global poverty, pandemics, of national security challenges like continuing war on terrorism, instability of iran and north korea, rising powers, turmoil across the middle east, turmoil in north africa, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the growing threat of cyber attacks. how we confront these problems, how we deal with these challenges will in many ways determine the future course of america. it will determine whether the united states will be a leader in the 21st century, or whether we will be just another failed empire in history. to succeed, we will depend on the resilience of our economy, the strength of our diplomatic and military institutions, and above all, the effectiveness of our political system. that underpins in many ways everything we do as a country. and that brings me to what i see as perhaps the most urgent task, facing this nation and facing all of us. and that is overcoming the partisan dysfunction in congress that poses a threat to our quality of life, to our national se
there are members here that agree, you got to address the larger deficit issue and to address a large deficit issue and my own experience having participated in every budget summit that we've had in past years, you got to be able to develop a balanced package in order to do that. that's just the nature of dealing with the size deficit -- size of deficits that you got. my preference, frankly, is that the congress would do the big deal, get it done, get this behind us, detrigger sequester, some this constant uncertainty, this month-to-month situation where we don't know what the hell we're going to get. that should end. in the absence of that deal, obviously i'll support whatever package you can put together to try to detrigger sequester. whatever you can do to make sure this doesn't happen. i mean, i cannot imagine that people would stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national defense by letting this take place. >> i'll only add briefly that most of the things we're doing are reversible. that is our goal, that they would be reversible. even if you reverse them it will take so
to the deficit. on that list of attendees for that meeting include marshall fitz from the center for american progress. ben jealous from the naacp and richard from the afl-cio. later in the day the president is meeting separately with a group of business leaders. that includes lloyd from goldman sachs, from yahoo and kent from coca-cola. congress has the next three and a half months to run up the deficit as much as it wants. the house and senate extended the debt ceiling. president obama has signed the no budget, no pay act of 2013. not only does that put off the nation's debt obligations until may 18th, it also withholds pay for a number of congressmen and womenless women unless they pass a budget by april. >>> eight senators have voted to block the violence against women act. that bill would protect victims of domestic violence and this particular version extends that care to illegal immigrants, native americans and lgbt members. senators who voted against considering that bill include ted cruz, marco rubio and rand paul, all republicans. more bill's up next. stay with us. to me now? you k
. you've got to address the larger deficit issue, and to address the larger deficit issue -- and my own experience. i've participated in every budget summit we have indiana past -- we have had in past years. you have to develop a balanced package. that's the nature of dealing with the size deficits you've got. and my preference, frankly, is that the congress would do the big deal, get it done, get this behind us, detrigger sequester, stop this constant uncertainty. this month-to-month situation where we don't know what the hell we're going to get. that should end. in the absence of that deal, obviously i'll support whatever package you can put together to try to detrigger sequester. whatever you can do to make sure this doesn't happen. i mean, i cannot imagine that people would stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national defense by letting this take place. >> i'll only add briefly that most of the things we're doing are reversible. that is our goal, they would be reversible, but even if you reverse them it will take some time -- and i can't predict that yet -- w
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 123 (some duplicates have been removed)